Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2002 00:59:16 -0700 From: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> To: Dave Hayes <dave@jetcafe.org> Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Message-ID: <3D707754.1981EA36@mindspring.com> References: <200208310608.g7V68h128080@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Dave Hayes wrote:
> Perhaps we can disagree about what the adverse condition is, but
> this doesn't have any bearing on whether adverse conditions cause
> evolutionary pressure. I (and most of evolutionary science) claim
> it does, you claim it doesn't, none of us can prove it either way
> to the others' satisfaction, lets move on.
All evolutionary pressure is, by definition, focussed on exclusion
from the set of reproductive elements. You keep implying that it
is a positive, rather than a negative feedback loop. It's you who
are arguing with the majority of evolutionary scientists. The simple
fact is that recessive genes are never removed from the gene pool,
only individuals in which they express are removed.
> > I guess you might as well give up, then, since there's no hope...
>
> Yes, it seems that way. However, I have all the hope in the world. I'm
> working on myself. When I can fail to contribute to those things
> completely, neither supporting nor opposing them, I will have arrived
> at my destination.
"Good luck to you, oh fellow traveller".
> > Of course. Society defines morality.
>
> Don't confuse "morality" with "the right way". Sure, society defines
> morality, but morality does not define "the right way". It defines
> "the way society expects you to be or they will get multiple people
> with big sticks to beat you up". These are not equivalent.
I disagree. It speaks to the consensus definition of "right" and
"wrong".
> >> The ones that break out and forcibly reproduce are the best suited to
> >> survival in hostile environments. By definition even.
> >
> > Nature seems to vote against that one.
>
> How so?
By evolving creatures who imprison or kill peers who engage in
forcible reproductive acts, thereby ensuring their removal from
the gene pool.
> > Better to be arrogant with the sanction of the state, than to be
> > arrogant and facing a crowd of torch-wielding peasents.
>
> I think that the latter arrogance has more honor...the former
> is akin to cowardice.
I guess we now know who ate the mailman. 8-).
> Bah. You presume the external reality is more important. I find it
> ironic (and a part of the great comedy we call "Earth") that you waste
> brain memory knowing obscure attributions of random Zen quotes...and
> yet this is somehow more important to you than the actual philosophy
> the quote points at.
External reality can act to take away our access to any reality,
external or internal. You have to accomodate that fact, even if
you dislike it.
As to what I choose to remember, well, it's not like I have to
forget one thing to remember another.
> > Accessory after the fact, receiving stolen property, etc..
>
> All those are attempts by society to make you tow the party line
> even if you aren't taking action when a "bad" activity occurs.
Yes, they are.
> So your point was...?
Society has power over its members, even if they refuse to
acknowledge that fact intellectually, they must acknowledge it
physically.
> > And we punish them, and That's The Way It Is.
>
> You don't catch all of them, and That's The Way It Is. So society is
> inefficient at best.
You only need to catch enough of them to keep their numbers under
the multiplicative threshold necessary for them to displace the
current society.
> You cannot force someone to cooperate, that's oxymoronic. Someone
> either cooperates or is coerced. There isn't any other real state.
Coerced cooperation is still cooperation. The individual is doing
what the society wants the individual to do; c.v. the Theory of
Limits and Zeno's Paradox.
> > [ ... society is inmically trying to make people over into good citizens ... ]
> >> It is, and I'm extremely paranoid. Good security people always are.
> >
> > That's a big "whatever".
>
> Wow, no snappy comeback! I must be making a dent in that wall of
> "useless rationality" you have.
Hardly. It's merely not worth the effeort to drag an admission out
of you, since it serves no larger purpose to perform the work. If
you were in fact paranoid, as you claim, then you you would be able
to rationalize any argument against your inherently paranoid nature,
and there would be no possibility of accomodation.
> > "Ding, slobber" is an obvious reference to Pavlov's dogs, which is
> > an example of conditioning, not indoctrination. Maybe you meant to
> > say "conditioned" rather than "indoctrinated", originally?
>
> What's the difference? It's the same thing, ultimately. One is just
> a fancier name and has less of an import on the feeling of severity.
The denotations are always more important than the connotations.
> > Rodney King was a fleeing felon in voilation of parole.
>
> I don't care what he was. There was zero excuse for that display
> of police brutality. There's zero excuse for any of it actually,
> and it's a prime reason I despise authority and rebel against any
> sort of organized policing. Who watches the watchers?
See other posting for an elaboration of details.
> >> Am I? Dishonesty towards the self is the root cause of unawareness.
> >
> > Can you prove that?
>
> Not without first proving that the notion of proof has validity.
I'll accept the validity of proof for the sake of argument, so you
can proceed without first proving it, if you want... ;^).
> > I already suggested an abandoned oil righ in the North Atlantic;
> > must I think of everything? ;^).
>
> That won't work. Some insurance company with hundreds of lawyers will
> come out and claim that rig someday. Where else? Mars might work but
> in a few hundred years might not. Where can I be free of lawyers?
First, there is already an individual who has colonized an oil rig
in the North Atlantic in this fashion. It was fairly widely reported
about four weeks ago. Second, finding a location where you can be
free of lawyers is *your* problem, not mine.
If Mars will work, then by all means, go there. If the reason it
won't work in a few hundred years is the encroachment of Earth's
society, then there's always force of arms (I hear there are large
Illudium Q-36 deposits in the polar regions... ;^)). If the reason
is that once societies grow large enough, your ideas will not work,
well, I guess your ideas lose.
> > No, it's not. Define a third catagory for this particular case,
> > without using negation of the union of the other two.
>
> How about "my argument is valid within the context of a certain
> frame of reference, and invalid otherwise"?
Since all arguments take place in a frame of reference, this is
tautological.
[ ... totalitarian societies eventually stagnate ... ]
> > You've asserted it, but not proven it.
>
> It's not provable. There are literally millions of twisty little
> societies, all different.
If it's not provable, then it's not true. All things which are
true are, at least eventually, provable.
> > And I think trolls should find their own community, and quit
> > bothering ones where they're not welcome. It's unlikely either
> > of us will ever get our way.
>
> Well I contend that, to the society of trolls, YOU are a sociopath. ;)
Luckily for me, I suppose, that I do not live in a society of trolls.
> > You're right. We should block their manipulations!
>
> Yes, internally to ourselves...where the block has a chance of being
> effective.
If it didn't have a chance of being effective externally, you
would not so vehemently argue against external blocking, since
an ineffective block is a transparent membrane.
[ ... technological solutions to the troll problem ... ]
> >> I'd definately consider writing the hack that breaks such code. ;)
> >
> > Eventually, the code would be correct, even if your implied premise
> > here is that it doesn't start out that way.
>
> Yes, my hack would be correct, and allow people a different perception
> of EACH mailing list on the planet with no censorship.
The problem is N-P incomplete. Implement you code and prove me
wrong.
> >> > Your position is counter species-survival.
> >>
> >> So say you. Yet it works for me. I don't feel it is my duty to
> >> interfere in certain matters between humans. Where I come from,
> >> this is called "being nosy".
> >
> > Where I come from, it's called social conscience.
>
> Gee, we must come from different places. Why is your way more right?
It works? It has been demonstrated, while yours is merely theoretical,
and your previous attempts to demonstrate "your way" have resulted in
failure?
[ ... Is trolling SPAM? ... ]
> > So... ask the list, since that's the society whose context matters
> > for this discussion.
>
> I think we've both -been- asking the list for some time now, in a
> roundabout way of course.
Then the list has *already* responded. You initial posting was an
attempt to challenge that response. On a voting majority basis, it's
basically 17:2 (you and the troll being the two).
> >> > A troll whose posting is blocked does not have his postings
> >> > destroyed, nor are they paineted over; they are merely forced
> >> > to another venue.
> >>
> >> This destroys the future postings in that venue.
> >
> > Yes, you're right. There are many actions which risk consequences;
> > if you don't want the consequences; like stepping off a cliff risks
> > gravity hurtling you onto the rocks below. I don't see this as a
> > problem.
>
> I do. I want to read those posts.
So subscribe to the venue in which they are permitted to be posted,
and read them to your heart's content.
What you really mean to say here is that you want *us* to have to
read these posts, as well, and therefore the only suitable venue in
which the posts can take place is *these lists*... IYHO.
> > Well, as far as Rosseau is concerned, you're welcome to be born
> > into a different society. 8-).
>
> Oh, I have a choice now?
> I thought you were a rationalist or objectivist or something like
> that?
Rational humanist; definitely not "objectivist". The ability to
read Ayn Rand, IMO, should require a license, which you obtain by
proving your ability to distinguish charactratures from reality.
8-). No one is completely a Henry Reardon, nor a John Galt, nor
is selfishness a virtue.
> > It's not a popularity contest, it's a topicality litmus test.
>
> The notion of "on-topic" can be highly subjective. So you don't bore
> both of us with citing the extrema, I'm referring to those posts that
> reasonable people (that means neither of us) can disagree about
> topicality. Sometimes these posts have good information. I don't feel
> it's appropriate to risk that information JUST because someone pays
> upwards of a penny per message to download it.
I can agree with that, no problem.
Now please demonstrate how a troll posting to -hackers fits within
the list charter by any stretch of the imagination. As I said
before, it fits the charter of -chat, no problem (you will notice
that when I respond on this topic, I response only in -chat).
> > A *mutual* altruism network. We aren't talking "gifts" here, we
> > are talking the equivalent of stone soup.
>
> That's not real altruism, so I can't really understand what you are
> talking about.
I'm talking about a mutual altruism network. The concept of "mutal
altruism" is not identical to the concept "altruism", or I would not
have needed to use the adjective "mutual" to modify "altruism" in
order to communicate what I meant.
> >> If the altrusim being networked is fake, then the honorable thing to
> >> do is to post your conditions and expectations BEFORE giving the gift
> >> to give the recipients the chance to accept or reject the conditions
> >> and expectations...e.g. "No trolls".
> > The altruism is real; you seem to be objecting to the context.
>
> It can't be. Real altruism doesn't require mutuality.
The context is mutuality. You sound like Joy Beech, leader of
"The Citizens For True Freedom" (as opposed to the "false freedom"
that all the rest of us seem to be up for...).
If you are going to insist on "Real Altruism", then I'm going to
have to deny a desire to participate in your proposed society, and
oppose your attempts to change the societies in which I already
participate into your proposed society. On the other hand, I have
no problem whatsoever with you creating your own mailing list server
and establishing your proposed society on that server, instead.
> >> If the altruism being networked is real, trolls aren't a topic by
> >> definition (no strings, remember?).
> >
> > They can have the benefits of altruism outside the context of
> > the mutual altruism network. Just not mine. 8-).
>
> Hey, it's your gift. You can take it back any time you want.
I'm not taking it back. My gift is not the object itself, but a
license to use the object under certain preconditions. 8-).
> > In the future, society will send in little robots to rearrange their
> > neurons so that they no longer need to be racists. They won't be
> > who they were, they will be wholly different people, but, by your
> > logic, these wholly different people would have the same right to
> > exist as the racists had, so there would be no net loss of freedom,
> > or even anarchy, if we did that, right? 8-).
>
> *slaps hand to forehead, drags slowly down face*
Don't panic. Society will only do it if you *act* on your racism.
> Wrong. Sometimes I think you favor the notion of "thoughtcrime".
A man came up to me and said
"I'd like to change your mind
by hitting it with a rock," he said,
"though I am not unkind."
We laughed at his little joke
and then I merrily walked away
and hit my head on the wall of the jail
where the two of us live today.
-- They Might Be Giants, _Flood_, "Whistling In The Dark"
8-).
> > "Any place trolls are not" could be the Schelling point I choose
> > to create.
>
> No such place. Next?
Don't be so quick to dismiss the idea that I could wilfully create
such a place in the noosphere.
> > I'm pretty sure branding a big "I" on their forehead wouldn't work.
>
> It might piss them off enough to lock you in a room with 10 of
> them. ;)
If there were 10 and them and 1 of me, then I'd be the troll, and
they'd be the society being trolled.
> > The troll can already do this. It's the obvious escalation of
> > an effective immediate-no-repeat-posting-by-source mechanism.
>
> Very intersing. I would have no substantative objection (which won't
> stop me from objecting on principle) to this, given a troll can get
> an infinite source of email accounts.
"Hotmail".
> > Then the answer becomes moderation of the ability to post in the
> > first place, as a counter-escalation. If the troll can't/won't
> > take a hint that strong, then you go to a mutual trust network to
> > establish posting rights ("Bob can post because I can post, and I
> > trust Bob").
>
> On this road lies the stagnant community. USENET has hundreds of
> moderated examples of these, as we both appear to know.
A stagnant community is one in which no forward progress is
possible, due to the preponderance of trolls, since it is their
nature to disrupt the society's ability to act, even in the
direction of forward progress. And herein lies the problem
with permitting trolls.
> >> > No faith required.
> >>
> >> Yes there is. As mathematics is taught, you have to take certain
> >> things on faith before you learn enough.
> >
> > Mathematics is not a Science, mathematics is a language. Even
> > meets the language requirement, at some universities.
>
> Inane triviality which dodges the point almost as well as I can.
> You really are my mirror. I never thought I'd see another one of
> me out there. Gee.
Your point is that I must have fait in my axioms. I will accept
that. But since I have exactly 8 axioms, and know very well what
they are, it's unlikely that you will be able to arrive at them
by means of guessing, even if that guessing is educated.
Let us say, for the sake of of not rat-holing discourse, that I
have faith in things which can demonstrably bring about results.
> >> Trolls really do communicate data.
> >
> > Noise is not data.
>
> Yes it is, it's just not the data you are expecting.
Or not data I want, because it is not representitive of repeatable
empirical observations?
> > I'm dyslexic [ I guess that's not "adversity", any more than
> > near-sightedness, though, since there are coping mechanisms
> > available ].
>
> I would have never guessed unless you'd told me.
As I said, there are coping mechanisms.
> > Treating your statement again, in this context: there is no manifest
> > destiny for the Internet, however much you might wish that this were
> > not the case. It is merely a communications medium.
>
> IYHO.
>
> IMEO, there is a manifest destiny for humans to be able to communicate
> with each other without some authoritarian gibbert telling them how
> they can and cannot speak.
That's a use to which you personally want to put a communications
medium, and you have picked the Internet as a transport for your
venue. That doesn't make it the manifest destiny of the Internet,
merely because of your opinion of the manifest destiny of human kind.
> The internet is the most likely choice at this time.
Perhaps it is. That's irrelevent to the issue of trolls on a
particular set of mailing lists, since you can freely create your
own mailing lists and realize your vision. If you are right, then
everyone will migrate over to using your list server. If you're
wrong, then they won't. Your hypothesis is testable, without you
having to take over our mailing lists. If it's correct, you will
render our lists irrelevent anyway.
> > Stop waiting and act to create it. Get your trolls, script kiddies,
> > and exploiters to help you.
>
> At the moment, I have other things to do (like participating in this
> tennis game we call "chat"). My time will come, and I will act
> impeccably. Then I will leave and let others do their job.
For heaven's sake, don't let *me* keep you!
> Consider. YOU lobbed the first volley at me. I'm enjoying myself, I
> haven't had a good usenet style debate in ages. But by the same token,
> I have no delusions that I am swaying you of anything other than
> thinking I am a fool.
You were the one who posted in favor of trolls. It was you who
lobbed the first volley against the established social norm of
the society in which your posting was made.
> > I'm willing to reciprocate that, but it's probably a lost cause
> > given "there is no such thing as an acceptable proof".
>
> I'm actually quite convincable given a rational argument which accepts
> that everything we work with is assumption. However, I don't think you
> are capable (I could be wrong), and this is the wrong forum.
The forum is FreeBSD-chat, and we are talking about FreeBSD mailing
lists and the policies thereof. It's topical to the forum, and
anything that is topical to a forum is not incorrect.
As for swaying me, you need only work logically from mutually
accepted first principles.
Unfortunately, you have this Utopian ideal in mind, and I do not
share your ideal, because, so far, you have failed to provide me
any reason to accept the ideal as my own. As long as you continue
to argue from a premise of an as yet unjustified goal state, you
will probably find it difficult to find anyone to agree with you
who did not arrive at the same ideal on their own.
> > Yes. Violence advocated by society is, by definition, not sociopathic.
> > "Be All That You Can Be".
>
> You are presuming One True and Right Society. I bet Iraq has something
> to say about the sociopathy of the American armed forces...
Not applicable, unless there is a shared reference frame. I
don't think "socipath" is the appropriate term in this context;
I think the one the Iraqi's themselves have chosen is "Great
Satan"... 8-).
> Ok, you are fascinated by these trolls and your fascination lies in
> how to get rid of them.
>
> It's still my opinion you are angry and holding that anger from your
> own view. But I can settle for fascinated.
Thanks. I would rather solve the class of problems, of which trolls
are a member, then address the problem of individual trolls. If
nothing else, there are economies of scale. 8-).
> > Let's just say that it's my single vote, out of the crowd.
>
> WOO HOO finally I get him to back off of the "I speak for everyone"
> thing. *chalk*
I never claimed to speak for everyone, merely the faction which
agreed with my sentiments, and was not speaking themselves
because they felt I was doing an adequate job. You were the one
who insisted on converting an "us" into "the royal Us". If I
had intended it that way, I would have capitalized it. 8-).
> Human judgement doesn't repair itself without the chance to be
> defective.
Diseased branches can kill a tree if they are not pruned.
> Indoctrination produces robots. Education produces real human beings.
> Real human beings have good judgement.
Robots are just as good a mechanism for the solution of social
ills. A person robotically avoiding proscribed behaviours that
are detrimental to the larger society has the same effect as a
"real human being" who avoids the behaviours, not because they
are proscribed, because of their knowledge that the behaviours
would be detrimental.
Regardless of your opinion of modern education (it can hardly be
lower than my own), to the society, it is the effect of the results
on the society that matter.
A society no more cares for its individual members than you
care for the individual cells which make up your body.
> > On the other hand, isolation of 100% of infected individuals is 100%
> > effective in stopping the spread of any epidemic.
>
> And dishonorable to those individuals. Do you realize that you are
> taking the position of the haughty master, claiming that everyone
> that doesn't act as he wants them to should be isolated and locked up?
That's an extreme overstatement of my position, on the basis of
one of a set of possible solutions to the problem.
> > Feel free to point out "new data" like this --> new data <--, to
> > ensure clarity. 8-).
>
> --> WAKE UP, you're asleep! <----
--> I don't BELIEVE you because you refuse to offer proof! <--
-- Terry
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3D707754.1981EA36>